“You’re not Rangers any more…”

129
186

At near every ground Rangers travel to, we hear this chant. Heck, we even hear it from embittered pockets of travelling supporters at Ibrox.

Naturally it is usually followed up with “same old Rangers always cheating” which goes beyond irony.

However, this relates nicely to that good old ‘admin2’ threat every non-Rangers fan obsessive likes to preach.

This site was amused to sit back and read conspiracy comment after conspiracy comment to its articles which professed categorically that chairman Dave King was going to jail. That he would lose to Mike Ashley in court and Rangers would be in tatters.

Those comments piped down the moment Ashley got trounced, most likely sent in as they were by Phil MaGobbledigook’s cohorts. Or maybe the fantasist himself.

Consequently they have needed something new to spin, and the latest is a return to the admin2 stuff.

However, if we try to overlook the lunacy of this piffle, itself not an easy task, there is the matter of the “you’re not Rangers any more/same old Rangers always cheating” fallacy.

The people telling us Rangers are a new club are the ones talking about admin2.

Prizes to those who can tell me the flaw here…

No? Well, and this is for those who weave such nonsense; if Rangers are a new club, how can it be a second admin?

Is it not just ‘admin’?

There is a loss of logic, reason, sense and general rationality when it comes to Rangers in Scotland – with the obsessed hordes conjuring up whatever they can to try to make themselves feel better about the fact Rangers are still around and did not die.

They care not that they contradict themselves at every turn. They care not that their argument is neither valid nor sound.

All they care about is trying to attack Rangers.

Well, we are still here my friends, keep trying.

129 COMMENTS

  1. Still not actually reading any factual lawful books mate. Intellectual property is not the club. Its an asset just like plant or land. The club is all the assets collectively not just the title of operations. The air force example is not relevant to the RFC legal position. All you need to do is point out the law of Clubs and where it says a club is not the company once incorporated. Surely that will be easy to point me in direction of your source. Nimmo Smith wasn't talking the law when he made his SPL commission declaration. It was an SPL Tribunal nothing to do with law. He did however state quite clearly that legally the club and the company are the same thing. Government organisations are not clubs. therefore its not the same thing. Intellectual property can be purchased outwith any club for a fair price. In RFCs case it was for less than 1 pound apparently. But maybe thats why a fraud case against the administrators is under way. Havant got a clue what that all about. Did RFC fans get shortchanged. No doubt. Does new RFC feel same to any fan. Probably. Is it legally same. I don't think so. But maybe you have some legal stuff to back up your claim Intellectual property = whole club. And clubs can come out of liquidation by transferring to new companies to avoid paying creditors. Maybe you were a member of the gladiator club in your past life. Its gone now. Not even the second third fourth or fifth gladiator club is still going. One day even the air force will be gone. Not an incorporated club under UK law though. So totally irrellevant to the point of legal weight. One day there will be no more football. Laws on clubs are very easy to find online. Try reading one. And thanks for reminding me Im an idiot so often. Still legally correct even though Im an idiot. And no Im not Phil 3 names. I came hear to try and learn what all the fuss was about. Whats so bad about being anew club anyway? might look same but legally its not. But just as much fun to be had watching the team. Do you resort to name calling often? peace and kindness on you and your family friends and new club.

    • You keep banging on in error. The ame nonsense repeated ad nauseam will not make it true.
      The company is an legal entity that owns assets. Tangible and intangible. These assets are NOT the company, never mind the club. The club has no legal personality. It has no assets. It IS an asset. An intangible asset, Rangers are legally and emotionally the same club.
      Rangers will remain the same club legally. Anyone who wants to challenge that can make an application to the courts. They can try to convince the court that newco has committed a criminal and civil offence by presenting the club they operate as being the same club that oldco operated.
      Proving that newco has presented Rangers as the same club will be easy. BDO and the creditors, London Stock Exchange and shareholders and so, so, many more will back you on that front. Newco will totally agree with you that they have indeed done that.
      Your difficulty will come when you try to convince the court they have done that illegally.
      So get into your law books son. Lodge a challenge. Make yourself a hero.

      There must be thousands like you. Tell them what the law is and they will pile in. Besides, what's to lose? Except, your court costs, and newco's as well of course. Good luck hot-shot. I won't hold my breath.

      Signed,

      Your Daddy.

      LOL

    • Your jumping to more conclusions. Your quoting nothing that backs up your story. Im no hot shot. You take comments made as opinions and then use them as some sort of legal defence. You claim that i have an agenda against Rangers. I have not. The blog proposes that other teams are being offensive in suggesting that Rangers are not the same club. You have an agenda. You twist dream scenarios and propose them as law. You claim company is not club in law and make no source for your claim. Just add more conjecture. I therefore put it to you that perhaps you are reading what you want to suit an agenda that you want to be the case. You miss quote Nimmo Smith and other QCs talking in a non legal context. And refuse to accept any legal suggestion that is contradictory to your agenda.

    • I won't be pursuing anything in law. Im just putting up the defence for the case that singing your not Rangers anymore is supported by the companies act, insolvency act and the fact that creditors got stuffed. No hot shot requirements. I personally don't have any problem with Rangers being a new club. But for some reason you have a problem with people who believe the legal case for Rangers being a new club. You claim that club is not company. Which i cannot read freely in any law books. You make a claim that intellectual property pertaining to the name of Rangers and its logos for playing purposes is the club. I disagree and it would seem from previous other liquidation cases that have been quoted in this blog that the Rangers case is quite different in law. All other cases where a club was in liquidation came out of liquidation to save the club or save the club just before liquidation proceeding were began by paying creditors. Creditors are a major stakeholder in any club/business/comapny. The assets and liabilities define the club/business/comapny in law. Refusing or being unable to pay creditors puts club/business/comapny in liquidation. Transferring assets from a club/business/company that cannot pay creditors to a new club/business/company including intellectual property assets does not transfer the club as a whole it transfer the assets, the building blocks of a club/asset/company which allow the club/business/company to grow. This notion of same club different company is unlawful. I repeat the same thing over as nauseum because it seems that you don't actually read it unless it is repeated. The incorporation of a club makes the club a legal entity in its own right. The naming rights logo and other intellectual property are important parts of a club. But if another company buys those assets without the liabilities which helped build those assets it has by law created a brand new club/company/business albeit with the assets of old club. Its allowed to trade in law as anew club/company/business. But if it wants to be the old business/club that created all the history it must take responsibility for the creditors who helped to grow the old club/business or at least agree a settlement with them in form of a CVA. This did not happen. Assets were transferred. Perhaps illegally. So it might be in Rangers favour if they are found guilty of felony or fraud in acquiring old club assets for new company. And the assets may be transferred back to liquidated club, to find new byers at a more appropriate price and restart old rangers with old board and see if they can pay off creditors to prevent another new club from acquiring the assets. I suspect even if that happened the license for football would be revoked and old rangers or new new rangers would be forced to start again from scratch at bottom of the 4th tier. If old rangers creditors get paid or settle favourably with old rangers then old rangers would become the same club it always had been albeit with a 4+year gap in its history but its honours would be claimed being old club saved. But if creditors don't get paid then old rangers club will remain in liquidation and nice be gone forever except in history books. A bit like Third Lanark. Anyway you continue reading what you want to read and taking snippets of info out of context and keep on believing that Rangers are immortal since being dreamed into existence. Ill do reality. And while the law is quite clear on the matter if you look for it. You keep on dreaming up scenarios that arentbacked by law.

    • Again you say things which have never happened. BDO creditors and london stock exchange have never once claimed Rangers are same club. Only people who claim this are football fans in a non legal context. You somehow can't see the difference between law and what you want to believe a club is defined as by law. SFA SPL and EUFA all have different positions on what a club is for their purposes. The law has a completely different definition of club. You quote SPL definition of a club as if its law. You read SPL rules as defining the legal position of the UK law. Under UK law Rangers are anew club. SPL don't argue with the law. But for their sporting purposes they have their own rules which they have concluded means NEWco Same Club. Should this be challenged in a court of law at some point then SPL might need to update their definition to suit the law due to confusing people to believe its the law. But thats for someone else to take up the case. In footballing terms Club=company under law and UEFA rules. Club does not equal company in SPL rules. But for legal purposes should it be challenged and the law remains as it stands right at this minute then Rangers FC club incorporated 1899 became a legal entity by law Rangers FC Ltd the company and the club. You refuse to read your old clubs legal position in its own articles of association and memorandum. It says in black and white club is company from 1899 onwards. Club and company liquidated in 2012. No-one has ever legally disputed that. Some have made emotional opinions that its same club after 2012 debacle. But never in any legal sense has anyone claimed its same club.

      Thanks for reading Daddy

  2. Lets take the case of Airdrieonians v Clydebank. Airdrie went burst. A new company bought assets belonging to Clydebank FC and created Airdrie Utd. In Your dream world scenario who is the Team Airdrieonians? Are they New club Airdrie Utd. Old Club Clydebank FC (albeit just changed their name to Airdrie Utd) Or are they Airdrieonians as they call themselves since Rangers went burst and claim to be still Rangers? Whose history do New Airdrieonians have? Is it combo of both old clubs? Or whichever club they want to be, since its all just intangibles anyway? You keep digging more and more holes with your incorruptible history suggestions.

    To prove your theory only requires one thing a source for your claim that a club is not the company when it incorporates. Stock exchanges accept companies since Rangers is anew Company with high risk they were admitted to the high risk AIM Market. They couldn't retain a Nomad under King. Therefore they were booted off the AIM and currently have private ltd status until they can get resisted on AIM or even riskier market trading scheme. Old Rangers were a high grade PLC and had access to the real FTSE stock exchange for companies that have certain level of protection for investors. If any stock exchange accepts new company onto their market they must therefore be complying with companies act. Therefore incarnation of club gives club legal identity as a legal person who can bind contracts. Therefore any club accepted onto stock exchange must be the company that is on that stock exchange. Therefore Newco must equal NEWclub in law. Oldco=old club in law. SPL rules don't matter in law unless challenged in UK law. Which might just happen if Creditors get a raw deal from liquidation of OLD club. Once again it seems you have dreamed up notions that Stock exchange accept its same old Rangers. Any sources for this new theory of yours?

    Since your my Daddy and daddy calls me hot shot. Can I call you "The dream Dad?" you quote lots of dreams and pass them off as irrevocable proof that you are correct. I bet your fellow bears are cringing at your defence. Even though they really want you to be correct.

Comments are closed.